The Liquidation of Liquidationism

Published:Proletary, No. 46, July 11 (24), 1909.


      Published according to the text inProletary.Source:Lenin

	  Collected Works,


      Progress Publishers,1973,


      Moscow,Volume 15,


      pages452-460.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive


      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,

	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and

	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet

	Archive” as your source.•README

Ina special supplement to the present issue ofProletarythe reader will find a report on the conference of the

Bolsheviks and the text of the resolutions adopted


				there.[1]Our purpose in the present article is to assess the importance of this

conference and the breakaway of a small group of the Bolsheviks which took

place there, from the standpoint both of our wing and of the

R.S.D.L.P. as a whole.

Thelast two years, roughly from the coup d’état of June 3,

1907, up to the present time, have been a period of drastic change, of

grave crisis in the history of the Russian revolution and in the

development of the working-class movement in Russia and of the Russian

Social-Democratic Labour Party. The All-Russian Conference of the

R.S.D.L.P. held in December 1908 reviewed the present political situation,

the condition and prospects of the revolutionary movement and the tasks of

the party of the working class in Ike present period. The resolutions

passed by the conference are a permanent asset to the Party, and the

Menshevik opportunists who sought to criticise them at all costs, only

succeeded in betraying the glaring futility of their “criticism” which

was unable to offer any intelligent, integral and systematic solution of

the problems as an alternative to the one given in the resolutions.

Butthat was not all. The conference played an important role in the

life of our Party by indicating the existence ofnew ideological

groupingsin both wings—the, Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. The

struggle between these sectionscan be said without exaggeration to have filled the whole history of the

Party, both on the eve of the revolution and during the

revolution. Therefore the new ideological groupings are an event of great

importance in the life of the Party, an event whose lessons all

Social-Democrats should study, understand and digest, if they are to take

an intelligent, stand on the new issues which this new situation raises.

Thesenew ideological groupings may be briefly described as the

appearance of liquidationism on both the extreme flanks of the Party and as

the struggle being waged against it. By December 1908 liquidationism stood

fully revealed among the Mensheviks, but at that time the fight against it

was conducted almost exclusively by others (the Bolsheviks, the Polish and

Lettish Social-Democrats, a section of the Bundists). The pro-Party

Mensheviks, Mensheviks who were opposed to liquidationism, had barely begun

to emerge as a trend at that time, and were not at all united or open in

their criticism. Among the Bolsheviks both sections were clearly defined

and acted openly, namely, the overwhelming majority of orthodox Bolsheviks,

who were firmly opposed to otzovism and secured the adoption of their point

of view in all the resolutions of the conference, and the otzovist minority

who advocated their views as a separate group, and received frequent

support from the ultimatumists who wavered between them and the orthodox

Bolsheviks. That the otzovists (and the ultimatumists, too, insofar as they

are coming round to the otzovist viewpoint) are Mensheviks inside out,

liquidators of a new type, has been repeatedly asserted and demonstrated inProletary(see especially issues Nos. 39, 42, and


				  44[2]).


Thus among the Mensheviks the overwhelming majority were liquidators, and

the protest and struggle of the pro-Party men against them were barely

beginning to manifest themselves; while among the Bolsheviks the orthodox

elements were completely dominant, but an otzovist minority were acting

openly. Such was the situation within the Party at the December All-Russian

Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.

Whatis this liquidationism, then? What brought it into being? Why is

it that the otzovists (and the god-builders, of whom we shall say a few

words later) are also liquidators, Mensheviks inside out? In a word, what

is the social meaning and the social significance of the new ideological

grouping within our Party?

Liquidationismin the narrow sense of the word, the liquidationism of

the Mensheviks, consists ideologically in negation of the revolutionary

class struggle of the socialist proletariat in general, and denial of the

hegemony of the proletariat in our bourgeois-democratic revolution in

particular. This denial of course takes various forms, and occurs more or

less consciously, sharply and consistently. As an example we might mention

Cherevanin and Potresov. The former gave such an assessment of the role of

the proletariat in the revolution that thewholeeditorial board

ofGolos Sotsial-Demokrata, even before the split that took place

in it (i. e., both Plekhanov and Martov-Dan-Axelrod-Martynov) had to

repudiate Cherevanin, although it did so in a very discreditable form. It

repudiated the consistent liquidator inVorwärtsto the

Germanswithout publishing its statement in “Golos Sotsial-Demokrata”

for the benefit of Russian readers! In the article which he

contributed to theSocial Movement in Russia at the Beginning of the

Twentieth Century, Potresov liquidated the idea of the hegemony of the

proletariat in the Russian revolution so successfully that Plekhanov Left

the liquidationist editorial board.

Inrespect of organisation, liquidationism means denying the necessity

for an illegal Social-Democratic Party, and consequently renouncing the

Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, leaving its ranks. It means

fighting the Party in the columns of the legal press, in legal workers’

organisations, in the trade unions and co-operative societies, at

congresses attended by working-class delegates, etc. The history of any

Party organisation in Russia during the last two years teems with examples

of liquidationism on the part of the Mensheviks. As a particularly glaring

example of liquidationism, we have already referred (Proletary,

No. 42, reprinted in the pamphletThe All-Russian Conference of the

R. S. D. L. P. in December 1908) to the case where theMenshevik members of the Central Committee made a deliberate attempt towreck the Central Committee of the Party, and stop the functioning

of this institution. The almost complete breakdown of the illegal Menshevik

organisations in Russia is borne out by the fact that the “Caucasian

delegation” at the recent Party conference consisted entirely of residents

abroad, while the editorial board ofGolos Sotsial Demokratawas

confirmed (at the beginning of 1908) by the Central Committee of the Party

as a separate literary group, totally unconnected with any organisation

functioning in Russia.

TheMensheviks do not weigh up the implications of all these

manifestations of liquidationism. They either conceal them or are baffled

by them, at a loss to understand the significance of certain facts,

floundering in minutiae, vagaries and personalities, unable to draw general

conclusions, unable to grasp the meaning of what is going on.

Andthe meaning of it is that, in a period of bourgeois revolution, the

opportunist wing of the workers’ party, at times of crisis, disintegration

and collapse, is bound to be either out-and-out liquidationist or

liquidator-ridden. In a period of bourgeois revolution the proletarian

partyis boundto have a following of petty-bourgeoisfellow-travellers(what is known asMitläuferin

German) who are least capable of digesting proletarian theory and tactics,

least capable of holding their own in time of collapse, most likely to

carry opportunism to its extreme. Disintegration has set in—and the mass

of Menshevik intellectuals, Menshevik writers, have virtually turned

liberal. The intelligentsia has swung away from the Party—andconsequentlydisintegration has been most complete in the

Menshevik organisations˜ Those Mensheviks who sincerely sympathised

with the proletariat and the proletarian class struggle, with proletarian

revolutionary theory (and there have always been such Mensheviks who

justify their opportunism in the revolution on the grounds that they are

anxious to miss no changes in the situation, no convolutions in the complex

historical process) found themselves “in the minority once more”, in a

minority among the Mensheviks, without the determination to fight the

liquidators and without the strength to succeed if they tried. But the

opportunist fellow-travellers move furtherand further to liberalism. Plekhanov becomes exasperated with Potresov,Golos Sotsial-Demokratawith Cherevanin, the Moscow Menshevik

workingmen with the Menshevik intellectuals,and so forth. The

pro—Party Mensheviks, the orthodox Marxists among the Mensheviks, are

beginning to break away and, by the logic of things, by becomingpro-

Party, they draw nearer to the Bolsheviks. And it is our duty to

understand this situation, everywhere and in every way to separate the

liquidators from the pro-Party Mensheviks, to make closer contact with the

latter, not by glossing over differences in principle, but by building up a

really united workers’ party in which differences of opinion should not

stand in the way of the common effort, the common drive, the common

struggle.

Butare petty-bourgeois fellow-travellers of the proletariat the

exclusive property of the Menshevik wing? No. We have already pointed out

inProletary,


			       No. 39,[3]that they are to be found also among the Bolsheviks, as testified by

the entire mode of argument of the consistent otzovists, the whole

character of their attempts to justify “new” tactics. No sizable section

of a mass workers’ party could, by the nature of things, avoid during a

time of bourgeois revolution taking on a certain number of

“fellow-travellers” of diverse shadings. This is inevitable even in the

most highly developed capitalist countries, after the completion of a

bourgeois revolution, for the proletariat is ever in contact with the most

varied sections of the petty bourgeoisie and is constantly being

recruited. and replenished from them. There is nothing abnormal or terrible

in this,ifthe proletarian party is able thoroughly to absorb

these foreign bodies, to control and not be controlled by them, and is able

to see in good time that some of these elements really are foreign bodies,

and that in certain conditions one must clearly and openly dissociate

oneself from them. In this respect the difference between the two wings of

the R. S. D. L. P. is that the Mensheviks turned out to be in thrall to the

liquidators (i. e., the “fellow-travellers”), proof of which is to be

found among the Mensheviks themselves, being supplied bothby their Moscow adherents in Russia, and abroad by Plekhanov’s repudiation

of Potresov andGolos Sotsial-Demokrata;while in the case of the

Bolsheviks the liquidationist elements—the otzovists and

god-builders—proved to be a small minority from the outset, were rendered

harmless from the outset, and were ultimately pushed aside.

Thatotzovism is Menshevism inside out, that it also leads inevitably

to liquidationism, only of a slightly different kind, there can be no

doubt. It is not, of course, a matter of personalities or particular

groups, but of an objective general tendency—to the extent that otzovism

ceases to be a mere state of mind and seeks to evolve into a separate

trend. The Bolsheviks stated quite definitely before the revolution, first,

that their aim was not to create a separate trend in socialism but to apply

to the new conditions of our revolution the basic principles of

international revolutionary orthodox Marxist Social-Democracy; secondly,

they would do their duty even should it consist in an onerous, slow,

humdrum daily grind, if history, after the issue of the struggle and after

all opportunities for revolutionary action were exhausted, should condemn

us to plod along the by-paths of an “autocratic constitution”. The least

attentive reader will find these statements in the Social-Democratic

literature of i905. They are of immense importance as a solemn obligation

of the whole Bolshevik wing of the Party, a deliberate choice of path. In

order to fulfil this obligation to the proletariat, it was necessary to

take patiently in hand and re-educate those who had been attracted to

Social-Democracy by the days of liberty (there even appeared a type of

“Social-Democrat of the days of liberty”), who were attracted chiefly by

the vehemence, revolutionary spirit and “vividness” of our slogans, but,

who, though militant enough to fight on revolutionary holidays, lacked the

stamina for worka-day struggle under the reign of counter-revolution. Some

of these elements were gradually drawn into proletarian activities and

assimilated the Marxist world-outlook. The others only memorised a few

slogans without grasping their meaning, could only repeat old phrases and

were unable to adapt the old principles of revolutionary Social-Democratic

tactics to the changed conditions. Their several destinies are graphically

illustrated by the evolution of those whowanted to boycott the Third Duma. In June 1907 they were the majority among

the Bolsheviks. ButProletarycampaigned continuously against the

boycott. Events verified this policy and a year later the otzovists werein the minorityamong the Bolsheviks (14 votes against 18 in the

summer of 1908) in the Moscow organisation, which had been the strong hold

of “boycottism”. A year later, when the error of otzovism had been

abundantly and repeatedly demonstrated, the Bolshevik wing—and here lies

the significance of the recent Bolshevik conference—finally liquidated

otzovism and ultimatumism, the thin end of otzovism, finally liquidated

this peculiar form of liquidationism.

Solet none accuse us of causing a “new split”. In the Re port on our

conference we explain our aims and our attitude in detail. We did

everything possible, we left nothing untried, to persuade the dissenting

comrades: we were at it for over eighteen months. But as a wing, i. e., a

union of like-minded people in the Party, we cannot work without unanimity

on fundamental issues. To break away from a wing is not the same as

breaking away from the Party. The people who have broken away from our wing

in no way lose the possibility of working in the Party. Either they will

remain “free lances”, i. e., outside any wing, and the general

environment of Party work ’will draw them in. Or they will try to form a

new group—as is their legitimate right, if they wish to advocate and

develop their own special shade of opinion and tactics—in which case thewhole Partywill very soon see the practical manifestation of

thosetendencies, the ideological implications of which we have

tried to assess above.

TheBolsheviks have to lead the Party. To do so they must know their

course, they must stop hesitating, they must stop wasting time on

persuading waverers, and fighting dissentients in their own ranks. Otzovism

and ultimatumism, the thin end of otzovism, are incompatible with the work

which the present circumstances require of revolutionary

Social-Democrats. During the revolution we learned to “speak French”,

i. e., to introduce into the movement the greatest number of rousing

slogans, to raise the energy of the direct struggle of the masses and

extend its scope. Now, in this time of stagnation, reaction and

disintegration, wemust learn to “speak German”, i. e., to work slowly (there is nothing

else for it, until things revive), systematically, steadily, advancing step

by step, winning inch by inch. Whoever finds this work tedious, whoever

does not under stand the need for preserving and developing the

revolutionary principles of Social-Democratic tacticsin this phase

too, on this bend of the road, is taking the name of Marxist in vain.

OurParty can make no headway unless it decisively liquidates

liquidationism. And liquidationism does not only mean the direct

liquidationism of the Mensheviks and their opportunist tactics. It also

includes Menshevism inside out. It includes otzovism and ultimatumism, that

are impeding the Party in the fulfilment of its immediate task, in which

lie all the unique peculiarities of the present time, the task of utilising

the Duma rostrum and turning all the semi-legal and legal organisations of

the working class into coigns of vantage. The same goes for god-building

and the defence of god-building tendencies which are radically at variance

with the principles of Marxism. And the same applies to incomprehension of

the Party tasks of the Bolsheviks, which in 1906 and 1907 consisted inoverthrowingthe Menshevik Central Committee, as a body whichlacked the supportof the majority of the Party (not only the

Poles and Letts, but even the Bundists were against the Central Committee,

which was purely Menshevik at the time)—and which now consist in

patiently training up partyist elements and knitting them together, in

building up a really united and. strong proletarian party. The Bolsheviks

prepared the ground for partyism by their implacable struggle against the

anti-Party elements in 1903–05 and in 1906–07. Now the Bolsheviks

mustbuild the Party, build the Party out of their wing, build up

the Party by utilising thevantag-ground gained in the inner-Party struggle.

Suchare the tasks of our wing of the Party in the present political

situation and the general position of the B. S.D. L. P. as a whole. They

are set forth once more and developed in particular detail in the

resolutions of the recent Bolshevik Conference. The ranks have beenre-formed for a new struggle. The changed conditions have been taken into

account.The road has been chosen. Let us go forward along it, and the

revolutionary Social-Democratic Labour Party of Russia will begin rapidly

to build up into a force which no reaction will shake, and which will stand

at the head of all the fighting classes of the people in the next round of

our


			     revolution.[4]

[1]Seepp. 425–51 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]Seepp. 286–302, 356–59 and 383–94 of this volume.—Ed

[3]Seepp. 286–302 of this volume.—Ed.

[4]GolosSotsial-Demokrata, No. 15, andOtkliki Bunda,


No. 2,[5]have recently appeared. In these publications there is once

again piled up a heap of choice specimens of liquidationism, which will

need analysing and evaluating in a separate article in the next issue ofProletary. —Lenin

[5]OtklikiBunda(Echoes of the Bund)—a non-periodical

organ of the Bund’s Committee Abroad, published in Geneva from March

1909 to February 1911. Five issues were put out.
